Six questions for Matthew Alexander, author of "How to Break a Terrorist"

Harper's ^ | 12/18/08 | Scott Horton

[steve-b]

At 5:15 p.m. on June 7, 2006, two American F-16 fighters dropped 500-pound bombs on a farmhouse about five miles north of the Iraqi town of Baqubah. Within an hour, the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian street thug who had risen to become the head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was confirmed. This resulted from one of the most important intelligence breakthroughs of the Iraq War. Matthew Alexander is the pseudonym for an American Air Force major who, through a series of skillful interrogations, secured the information that allowed the military to pinpoint al Zarqawi's whereabouts and kill him. His book How to Break a Terrorist is a compelling account of the American military's turn from highly coercive interrogation techniques, which proved consistently unproductive, to confidence-building approaches honed over decades in the American law-enforcement community, which achieved steady success. I put six questions to Major Alexander about his book and the still-ongoing controversy about torture....

[steve-b]

Interesting insights from somebody who actually knows what's up.

[rightinthemiddle]

Alexander: “I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they had decided to pick up arms and join Al Qaeda was the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantánamo Bay.”

_________

Thanks to the Media!

[fishtank]

bflr = bump for later reading

[I see my hands]

"Interesting insights from somebody who actually knows what's up"

Maybe he knows what's up but that doesn't make him honest. The man is motivated by ego and BDS. The only insight he provided in the interview was that he is not to be trusted.

[webstersII]

“The man is motivated by ego and BDS. “

Baloney.

He is a veteran of the war, he is a veteran of over 1,000 interrogations. He speaks with authority on this subject whether you like what he says or not. He was on the front lines, and seeing the futility of the current policy, he will no doubt be passionate about his point of view.

The American military is the finest in the world because the soldiers in the field are given more authority than most countries would allow. This allows them to be flexible, so that they can adapt and overcome. This is another example where the military needs to adapt and ensure that they are being as effective as possible. It’s not about ideology, it’s about efficiency.

[Retain Mike]

I have no evidence to offer for belief of this idea, and I should be castigated for never taking a text to determine if I have the “conspiracy theory” gene. However, I have always wondered whether bin Laden had put a hit on Abu Musab al Zarqawi after the Jordan attack.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

From Harpers:

I see the world in terms of tolerance. Ignorance versus knowledge. Fear versus understanding. These two videos [of beheadings] are displays of hatred so fierce that it drives men to depravity. It is the hatred that I hate…

Pure hate. Pure malice. Torture and cruelty are their tools. To fight them, should I resort to hate?

No! Fight it with LOVE! Cue the music, unicorns, and rainbows!

Good Lord, this guy is a fruitcake. Given the one-sided BDS of the author too, I'd say this article belongs in the trash.

[TalonDJ]

Isn’t Harpers a far left rag?

[tsomer]

...I convinced the man who led us to Zarqawi to cooperate after only six hours of interrogation using a relationship-building approach. The old methods of interrogation had failed for twenty days to convince this man to cooperate...

He's taking full credit for what was part of the standard good-cop bad-cop routine.

It's easy to talk nice when a gorilla is backing you.

Another thing I'm not buying: that Abu Graib & Quantanamo made everyone want to be a terrorist. This confuses reasons with excuses.

[sausageseller]

Alexander: “I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they had decided to pick up arms and join Al Qaeda was the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantánamo Bay.”

But they were not motivated to pick up arms for Saddam's atrocities? Alexander failed to show them their hypocrisy.

[achilles2000]

Yes, but it caters to the elements of the far left that believe they are gentile and sophisticated. It isn’t the Daily KOS left.

Everything in Harpers is strongly slanted. (I am a former subscriber)

[sausageseller]

He's taking full credit for what was part of the standard good-cop bad-cop routine. It's easy to talk nice when a gorilla is backing you. Another thing I'm not buying: that Abu Graib & Quantanamo made everyone want to be a terrorist. This confuses reasons with excuses.

It is obvious that Scott Horton was not up to asking good follow up questions.

[Tallguy]

One of the things that bothers me about simply asking a detainee, “why did you take up arms” is the truthfullness of the answers that you get. How do we know that they are playing straight with us? They can say anything.

I think that there is a fair amount of “manipulating the interrogator” going on here. Everybody watches CNN, so the terrorists know how to hit the talking points.

[I see my hands]

"It’s not about ideology"
"He is a veteran of the war"

That's not the impression your hero gives. I don't believe him any more than I do Cindy Sheehan. BTW, she has irreproachable moral authority as well, don't you know.

[Eagles6]

"When my group of interrogators reached out to these Sunnis and offered them an alternative to fighting against us –fighting with us–they were easily convinced to cooperate and rejected Al Qaeda. Sometimes all it took was an apology from an American for the mistakes we made at the beginning of the war."

I see this guy traveling the circuit with james yee. Does he think that maybe the Defense Dept. redacted the story of how he "broke" the terrorist for info on zarqawi because they didn't want the bad guys to know of the technique, which they will now know and be able to prepare for.

[old school]

This guy’s full of crap! There are people out there, who, no matter how hideously, meaning-less a life they may have led, simply, will not talk without proper motivation. They know that, going-in! Even those with some abiding prospect of reward in the after-life will talk! But, you can’t TALK them into talking!

[webstersII]

“BTW, she has irreproachable moral authority as well, don’t you know.”

Wow. I didn’t know Cindy was a veteran and an interrogator to boot. News to me.

“He is a veteran of the war”
“That’s not the impression your hero gives. “

Yes, I believe that he is a veteran, unless you have info otherwise.

[webstersII]

“This guy’s full of crap! “

I will hazard a guess that you have never, ever, interrogated anyone while in a position of authority. If I am wrong, tell me so.

“But, you can’t TALK them into talking!”

Didn’t read enough of the article to understand the concept, I see.

[PLMerite]

Here’s a little morality play I like to do for proponents of the “ice cream and cake” school of interrogation. I’ve never gotten a believable answer yet:

The dirty nuke is planted somewhere upwind of your family.

It goes off in one hour. Evacuation of the area is not an option.

You have the guy who knows where it is.

What do you do?

[I see my hands]

They were separate thoughts and that's why they were in separate quotes, Bomar.

I never said CS interrogated anyone nor did I say MA was not a veteran. Implying I did is just your not so clever way of bearing false witness.

His (or anyone else's) service does not bestow moral authority upon him. Not him, not Cindy.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But just in case you really don't get it:
Merry Christmas!